Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Sunnichap

Sunni Shia Relation Today Please Comment

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

^Is that you? Are you the writter? If that so then I want to discuss these points with you... which I believe they are NOT true and just fantasy!

 

 

 

Shias should also know that for 1400 years the sunni world has dominated in numbers, empires, rule and authority. Why did Allah for most of Muslim World history give the Sunnis supremacy? Is it that the taint of cursing sahabas has made Allah Almighty displeased with Shia? Remember most muslims throughout history have considered the people Shia curse as the most God-pious and conscious people. If these honorable people really are what sunnis think of in Allah’s sight than its not surprising that shias have never been given dominance on a large scale because Allah wont give people who curse the greatest generation leadership of the Ummah. Today look the Muslim world is in shambles but the most powerful muslim country is a sunni country – Turkey. Democracy, modernity, science and technology, military and in all domains Turkey sets the standards in the Muslim modern world. The most global muslim cities are in the sunni world as well. Dubai, kuala lumpur, Jakarta, Cairo, Istanbul, Ankara, Doha, Kuwait city, Riyadh, Jeddah and others. The spiritual places of Islam – Mecca, medina and Jerusalem – the most revered and Quran mentioned cities – are also historically and even today populated and in control of sunnis as well except for Jerusalem which is occupied.

 

You never had empires, if you name a few then we can go over them and explain their dictatorship and brutality and even how they were ruling the opposite of Sunni Islam. Sunni ummah never been a ummah or a united front from the start... you happened to rule because of some of the worst rulers happened to come from Sunni background, starting from Yazeed to Saddam, from Ottoman to the Taliban... if you consider them Sunni empires, then that is your problem...

 

Turkey is not the most powerful Sunni country, first of all it is a secular country in which Alavis (Shias) play a major role in today's Turkey, Kurds who are entirely Sunni are oppressed in Turkey and live as a third class-citizens.... where some sources suggest that Kurds make 1/4 of Turkey's population.

 

Dubai, Cairo, Doha, Riyadh and bla bla are some western puppet sites who are built on theft-oil money and with the mercy of western-Zionist and under their supervision, they have nothing to do with Khelafa of Muhawiya or the Ottoman empires... and they are not as great as you try to describe them.

 

Mecca, Medina and Quds are under the direct rule of the Zionits through their Wahabi puppets. How come now they are Sunni dominated sites? With the help of American and Israeli armies?

 

I have no idea why you are taking pride on such issues and then speaking of unity... Jews and Christians have way better cities, countries, education, economy, they had some of the brutal and great empires, from Italy to Greece to Spain to Britain and France/Germany/US and all around the world... I doubt God chosen them or given them supremacy over Sunnis or Shias. These comments you made only create more rifts and they are the cause of disuniting us, against what you are intending to do... to unite ppl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the blog writer is either very young and inexperienced or lacks enough insight over the particular subject he has tried to address. I would study loads more, gain first hand knowledge about not just Shia and Sunni, but of the previous prophets and ummahs and of the human race overall as well.

 

See, having good cities or more wealth or power of governance or winning a war doesn't mean someone is God's favorite or not. If that were the case then the prophets would be the most powerful, most influential, wealthiest, and from the majority sort of people. But that is not true. If God cares for such things then I would say the Roman empire were His favorite people or that the Mayans were His chosen.

 

Or perhaps its all actually a trolling attempt made out of boredom? LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm let us ask this question: which country adheres the most to Islamic sharia? (being the richest, modernized and blabla doesnt matter in this short temporary world)

Is it turkey? Hell no.

Is it Dubai? HELL NO.

Is it Mecca? I choose not to answer that question since there is nothing more than writing in capital. (if this was a real life conversation I would be shouting hell no to the top of my voice)

So, whats the answer to that question?

According to me it is Iran. Without a doubt Iran has a lot of problems and hypocrites, but if you were to compare it with all the other Muslim countries out there, Iran most definitely is ahead.

Just a reminder to the OP, the majority of irans population is Shia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

asalam bro this article in which u say sunnis have been dominant and thats why theyre great/supreme or superior is the same as saying non muslims are following the true faith because they outnumber muslims

and when it comes to cursing we curse the enemies of Allah and the ahlulbayt a.s the cursing of the pious ppl ie sahabah was started by muawiyah when he started the cursing of moula Ali a.s and killing sahabas such as hujr ibn adi and ammar ibn yasser  may Allah be pleased with them just 2 name a few.

and when it comes to the rightful caliphs brother here is the truth

 

why did they start the voting after rasuAllah pbuh but stopped it after the death of abu bakr?

simple they started the voting to take the khilafat away from bani hashim a.s ie imam ali a.s the appointed caliph of RasulAllah pbuh

they stopped the voting and started succession back up so it could stay within themselves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, but Khomeini killed all Sunnis so I refuse to acknowledge the existence of Iran, its U-boats and navies, its fighter jets and all its technologies and its blood thirsty nuclear program. Jews have Palestine because God likes their long Sunni style beards and gave it to them. God gave the sunni Saudi arabia loads MORE OIL for a reason while in comparison all of Iran's stolen oil is a spittle in comparison. Do you think God doesn't run and oversee this world and lets chance and randomness run things here on Earth? God gave Romans an empire because they were intelligent and united like the Sahaba and God loves Sahaba. God gave Mayans knowledge because they imitated mosques and made pyramids pointing towards HIM. God is beautiful and loves beauty so he gave the rest of the world to Mericans.

 

On Jugment day when God's chair lands down one of its feet will land over Iran, the other over Hezbullah, one over Russia and one over Assad and they will all be crushed underneath! His back will be towards pagans of China and Japan. He will pick up us Sunnis in a pinch and throw us into paradise. And Abu Huraira will inform God of all hidden Shias. ALLAHU AKBAR! In paradise Umar will be waiting at the door with a whip in his hand to stop any friends of Shias from entering secretly,, you know, like those molvis who wear hijab to conceal themselves. He will kill a friend of Shia with his whip because he didn't kill that Shia who cursed Umar. GOD IS GREAT.  \o/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shias should also know that oppression is the worst thing :mellow:  Shias add this word in your Dictionary, what a shame you dont know that

 

oppression is the worst thing. Brother you plea for Unity but know not the basis needed for unity. For your info Turkey is not a Muslim country, i

 

wonder how she sets standards in modern muslim world? Standards in Legalizing Brothels, trying anything to get enlisted in EU or what?

 

If you think your analogy for Dominance of Sunni World if you believe in it, you must believe in the Righteousness of Christianity. If it was upto the

 

Taint of Cursing Sahaba(meaning of which is wrong in this context as to Shias the companions of Muhammad saww are very respectable),

 

Muaviya would never have acquired such a wealth and rule as he invented the CURSING of Ali (the most pious and true among the Companions)

 

which went for 70or90 years in a row.

 

Anyways welcome to SC.

Edited by Hasan0404

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since over 80% of mankind are disbelievers, that means Allah wants us to be disbelievers right? So lets all become disbelievers since Allah made them superior in number than Islam and its followers. Oh how about Allah letting the meccans fill the house of God with idols? How about we put idols in our house too? Or lets discrete the kabaah like yazeed, Allah wanted that too right? ...

 

Ignorance at its finest! Its called free will. There is no such thing as total predestination.By your logic you must give Allah everything that is evil too, since according to you he made that happen as well X_X smh....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The christian world has not dominated the overall temporal civilizational supremacy scale since Islams advent only until lately. The euro-western world picked or superseded only 17th century onwards. They were never in a position to declare that they stood superior until these last few recent centuries. And as well the muslim world is accelerating at great speed and coming out of its recession. My intent is not to say that shiasm is false. I am saying the trait of cursing sahaba means that perhaps that is the reason Allah s.w.t. has never given, throughout Islam's history shias full authority on earth. Regarding sunni empires I might be wrong on exact nature of them. But the early four caliph was sunni creeds, the ottomans, mughals, alandalus e.t.c. I know fatimid egypt was a successful shia empire. Malian empire, seljuks and others as well were sunni. They might not be perfect but they represented Islam to some extent and at their peaks were symbols of power and glory in their respective geographies and amongst their rivals.

What I am saying after years of being midst amongst all kind of sunnis. The curse sahaba factor and recently the Assad factor are impasses whenever I talk about unity with shias to my sunni brethren. I get alot of slack for being a 'shia lover'. I am just trying to get a middle ground where compromises will allow us both to work together and flourish. I have found trying to debate on technicalities and specifics of events which occured in seerah would end up no where.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the blog writer is either very young and inexperienced or lacks enough insight over the particular subject he has tried to address. I would study loads more, gain first hand knowledge about not just Shia and Sunni..........

We have seen how indulging in technicalities and debates over hadiths, history and fiqh have led us to. Slaughter on both sides. After 1400 hundred years and in the 21st century two muslim groups still can be driven to hate each other to extreme levels. We are a laughing stock to the rest of the world. The problem is both are hard headed. Sunnis will magnify many things in shia creed which really are trivial differences to show how you lot are so so different and shias want to insist they know better about sahabas and their 'malicious intent' as exemplified by this forum. What has 1400 hundred years of discussing and promoting this amongst your followers led to? Has it led to better Iman? Nah it has created sectarian shias. The demography of the muslim world wont change. Shias were a minority and have remained so for 1400 hundred years. There is no use convincing people about how they were deceived by believing sahabas were good. Teach us about Quran, deeds, forgiveness and teach us about love, compassion and

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That will be a good teaching. If people think that discussing about sahabas is the shia duty then you will continue the sectarian divide. I say forget all that. The sunni literature is imprinted in stone about who sahabs were. You can not revise it or mold it. The more stories and negative commentary about sahabas is made. The more hard core the sunnis become. The more they research their literature and the more they become convinced that shias making such allegations are rejectors rather than refiners.

So I invite all brothers here. Start talking about unity and peace. Keep the sahaba discussion on the side. They wont add to your faith, they will only subtract. They will create more rift and sectarianism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have seen how indulging in technicalities and debates over hadiths, history and fiqh have led us to. Slaughter on both sides. 

 

You forgot to add the noble Quran. Present day Sunnis ignore or misinterpret a lot of it. Its not just hadiths or history. In fact, Shias use Sunni hadiths and writers' works as proof for our arguments in our comparative religion debates.

 

"Slaughter on both sides" is also a dishonest statement in truth. The wars of Jaml and Siffeen and Nehrwan might be considered as "slaughter on both sides" as well. Some nawasib say that battle of Karbala was a "battle of two princes". Its the same level of ignorance.

 

 

The sunni literature is imprinted in stone about who sahabs were. You can not revise it or mold it.

 

Like I wrote, you should read it for yourself first. Secondly your assumption is wrong that we intend to "revise or mold it". Just like this statement of mine, our comparative religion debaters merely invite Sunnis to read their own stuff.

 

However, if you have written that blog to target Sunni readers having a knowledge / interest level like your own concerning this then I guess there is no need to study anything after all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot to add the noble Quran. Present day Sunnis ignore or misinterpret a lot of it. Its not just hadiths or history. In fact, Shias use Sunni hadiths and writers' works as proof for our arguments in our comparative religion debates.

 

"Slaughter on both sides" is also a dishonest statement in truth. The wars of Jaml and Siffeen and Nehrwan might be considered as "slaughter on both sides" as well. Some nawasib say that battle of Karbala was a "battle of two princes". Its the same level of ignorance.

 

 

 

Like I wrote, you should read it for yourself first. Secondly your assumption is wrong that we intend to "revise or mold it". Just like this statement of mine, our comparative religion debaters merely invite Sunnis to read their own stuff.

 

However, if you have written that blog to target Sunni readers having a knowledge / interest level like your own concerning this then I guess there is no need to study anything after all?

 

You forgot to add the noble Quran. Present day Sunnis ignore or misinterpret a lot of it. Its not just hadiths or history. In fact, Shias use Sunni hadiths and writers' works as proof for our arguments in our comparative religion debates.

 

"Slaughter on both sides" is also a dishonest statement in truth. The wars of Jaml and Siffeen and Nehrwan might be considered as "slaughter on both sides" as well. Some nawasib say that battle of Karbala was a "battle of two princes". Its the same level of ignorance.

 

 

 

Like I wrote, you should read it for yourself first. Secondly your assumption is wrong that we intend to "revise or mold it". Just like this statement of mine, our comparative religion debaters merely invite Sunnis to read their own stuff.

 

However, if you have written that blog to target Sunni readers having a knowledge / interest level like your own concerning this then I guess there is no need to study anything after all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shias use sunni hadiths to show who is right. Wow!! what a revealation you have informed me of. And do sunnis use western fiction books to write literature after literature discrediting the theology, fiqh and ways of the shia? Thats the whole point. I used to attend sunni forum until it went into hibernation. There used to be a few sunnis who had created hundreds of pages of topic after topic using shia literature to prove how shia creed is a deviation. There is no use in such to and fro proclamations. Its a vicious cycle which is never ending. The best route forward is to accept differences in version of history and keep it on the sideline.

Infact you can see non-muslims attack Islam from our scriptures also including Quran, hadith and seerah. Thus these books can be easily misinterprated according the proposing sects agenda.

Slaughter on both sides is not a dishonest truth. You will be dishonest if you say Alawites of syria have not slaughtered sunnis in their masses including children. The syrian crisis is behold to all. Assad is clearly a pharoic ruler. After decades of rule. His regime wants to retain power despite an uprising. When someone wants to stay in power despite widespread bloodshed you know there is something deficient in his soul. Also Sunnis in Iraq and pakistan are also occassionally killed in sectarian clashes even if the numbers might be disproportionate against the shias I agree. But there is some level of bilateral killings and murder.

I am not targetting any level of knowledge. Showing a level of Knowledge is not what is important. What is important is how do we maneuvre around sensitive issues such that a sunni guy can look at the shia guy without suspicion and same the other way. Heck our religion says that we should be quite considerate and affectionate with ahlelkitab why cant two muslim groups trust each other at all because of a few issues which I am sure our intelligentsia can find a way out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

Sunnichap

 

 

 

 

 

I quite agree.

Shīʿa and Sunnī should be able to coexist, each teaching its own doctrines to its own people in peace.

 

In Shīʿa madrasas, they must be permitted to teach their version of history, no matter how distasteful to the Sunnī, and in Sunnī madrasas, they must be permitted to teach their version of history, no matter how distasteful to the Shīʿa, and in Public areas, media and forums, they must both refrain from insulting or offending or emphasising the differences.

 

In fact, proper theological and polemical discussion does not belong in public places but in academic circles, where Truth is sought after thorough rational reflection, and not emotional diatribe.

 

Both subcommunities must be encouraged to read into their own and others' literature.

If a Shīʿa becomes a Sunnī after educating him or herself, and if a Sunnī becomes a Shīʿa after educating him or herself, then they should be permitted.

 

Above all, they must respect each other as 'Muslims with a difference'. That is, their blood, wealth and honour is sacrosanct. This is in accordance with all the traditional schools of fiqh.

A Shīʿa should not need to fear introducing himself as a Shīʿa, and a Sunnī should not need to fear presenting himself as a Sunnī.

 

Unfortunately, some Shīʿa and Sunnī suppose that 'Unity' means that a Shīʿa should abandon his version of history. This is not the case.

'Unity' means that a Shīʿa continues to believe and teach his version of history, but in a manner that does not arouse offence for his Sunnī brethren.

This is what the infallibles [as] taught - I am willing, of course, to discuss this individually with any of my Shīʿī brethren who are under the impression that the infallibles [as] taught otherwise.

 

This is not easy for either community. But there is no other way.

There will be a lot of ignorant elements who will resist and curse this endeavour.

It requires a lot of forbearance (ḥilm), a lot of determination (ʿazm), a lot of courage and a lot of faith (īmān) to remain serene amidst this seemingly hopeless sea of naysayers, and to continue pleading for the sake of the community.

Healing the rift of this community is like opening the Sea or splitting the Moon. It would be a miracle.

 

And Allāh is capable of producing miracles.

 

 

 

 

وَاعْتَصِمُواْ بِحَبْلِ اللّهِ جَمِیعًا وَلاَ تَفَرَّقُواْ وَاذْکُرُواْ نِعْمَةَ اللّهِ عَلَیْکُمْ إِذْ کُنتُمْ أَعْدَاء فَأَلَّفَ بَیْنَ قُلُوبِکُمْ فَأَصْبَحْتُم بِنِعْمَتِهِ إِخْوَانًا وَکُنتُمْ عَلَیَ شَفَا حُفْرَةٍ مِّنَ النَّارِ فَأَنقَذَکُم مِّنْهَا کَذَلِکَ یُبَیِّنُ اللّهُ لَکُمْ آیَاتِهِ لَعَلَّکُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ

 

 

And hold fast, all of you together, to the cable of Allah, and do not separate;

and remember Allah's favour unto you: How ye were enemies and He made friendship between your hearts so

that ye became as brothers by His grace;

and (how) ye were upon the brink of an abyss of fire, and He did save you from it.

Thus Allah maketh clear His revelations unto you, that haply ye may be guided

 

- Noble Koran 3:103

 

 

 

(wasalam)

JazaKAllah for this excellent post. I agree with most of what you say except that I think the history of both should be taught in a way that brings us closer. In the end its all commentary and preaching which finally interprets the scriptures. So sunnis should teach history in a way that is sympathetic to the reason of the political shia schism and the shias should teach history in a way respectful of what is sacrosanct to sunnis. As far as I know much of sunni criticism of shias is not offensive to what is most deeply sacrosant to shias. I mean we talk about imamate, taqiya, muta, prayer joining and other things which are all 'practices' or concepts not people. The only problem I think sunnis become fanatic more than shias is because it is a perspective of 'what they see' as slandering and maligning the most auspicious people in sunni history. Sunnis are never told to disrepute the most auspicious and reverent people of shia religion i.e. The imams. We are taught nothing but positive things about the closed one of the family which shias hold dearly to. All sunni mosques frequent stories of prophets love for fatima r.a, hassan r.a and hussein r.a are mentioned. Imam Ali r.a. Is the greatest of Imams. I dont think sunnis are entirely clear about superiority ranking even though they are emphatic, agreeable and have consensus about the khalif order. No sunni can say Abubakr r.a was much better than Imam Ali r.a. So sunnis hold Ali r.a. on par with the rest of what they say are the most elite sahabas. I mean some sunnis make fun of shia mahdi a.s but that is the concept. All sunnis revere and believe in the mahdi a.s. never the less I agree with the essence of your message. But I still think that shia teachers need to revise their whole delivery of how to approach the subject of the sahabas. Its just from experience and talks I have held with all sunnis i have come across in my life on shia-sunni subject. I pin down much of the shia-sunni volatility to this issue. At least the sunnis rabid hate for shias to this issue.

Anyways some short good clips i found on anti-sectarianism by the Iraqis......

http://youtu.be/w7MFBc89pu4

http://youtu.be/3HeZZ9SUcfI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The christian world has not dominated the overall temporal civilizational supremacy scale since Islams advent only until lately. The euro-western world picked or superseded only 17th century onwards. They were never in a position to declare that they stood superior until these last few recent centuries. And as well the muslim world is accelerating at great speed and coming out of its recession. My intent is not to say that shiasm is false. I am saying the trait of cursing sahaba means that perhaps that is the reason Allah s.w.t. has never given, throughout Islam's history shias full authority on earth. Regarding sunni empires I might be wrong on exact nature of them. But the early four caliph was sunni creeds, the ottomans, mughals, alandalus e.t.c. I know fatimid egypt was a successful shia empire. Malian empire, seljuks and others as well were sunni. They might not be perfect but they represented Islam to some extent and at their peaks were symbols of power and glory in their respective geographies and amongst their rivals.

What I am saying after years of being midst amongst all kind of sunnis. The curse sahaba factor and recently the Assad factor are impasses whenever I talk about unity with shias to my sunni brethren. I get alot of slack for being a 'shia lover'. I am just trying to get a middle ground where compromises will allow us both to work together and flourish. I have found trying to debate on technicalities and specifics of events which occured in seerah would end up no where.

 

Salam Br. First, your have to take these two issues seperately, as they are totally different. 

 

The 'curse Sahaba' factor

 

When you want to understand a different point of view, you must look at it from the point of view of those opposed to your position on the issue. In other words, you must be able to 'see thru their eyes'. From the Shia point of view, and there is mountains of historical evidence from both Shia and Sunni sources for this, it is precisely because of the actions of some Sahaba that we have a divided Ummah today, and because of this division, many hundreds of thousands or millions of muslims have been killed, including Imam Ali(a.s), Imam Hassan(a.s), Imam Hussain(a.s) and eight sons of Imam Hussain (more than 8, but I don't have the exact count in front of me) and many Sahaba. So either they are responsible for this or not, but if they are, then they should be cursed. 

 

At the same time, Almost all our ulema (with the exception of a few clowns like Yasir Habib) have told us not to curse the Sahaba openly in front of our Sunni brothers because we believe Sunnis are our brothers and we don't want to create more fitna and bad feeling. So the vast majority of the Shia, both ulema and lay people have the same opinion about this, if it hurts the feelings of our Sunni brothers, we will not curse them in front of you, but we will continue to point out their wrong actions which led to the divided Ummah we have today and what we do in private regarding this is our own business. 

 

The issue of Asad is different, and there are some Shia who support him and some who don't. His track record as a leader is mixed but lately, he has served the purpose of preventing, to a certain extent, the Takfiri from taking over Syria like they did with Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, and parts of Iraq. That is why many Shia support him, more for practical reason, and we pray night and day for peace and reconciliation in Syria and an end to the suffering of the Syrian people, both Shia and Sunni and whoever is elected leader by the majority of Syrian people, we will accept, but we will not accept foreigners deciding the fate of Syria and it's leadership, that is up to the Syrian people to decide. This is the most common position that I have seen. 

 

And the reason why Shia have not become a strong force in the world, with maybe the exception of the present time and the Islamic Republic of Iran, is because before this time Shia were being hunted down in every place in the Muslim world.

From the time of Umar and Abu Bakr till the time of the Ottoman Turks, Shia were viewed as enemies of the State so they were opressed, tortured, and killed. When you are just trying to survive till the next day, it is very difficult to build anything significant. 

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing is the irony today. Look at syria. Muslim blood seeping all over the street. This is damascus. A holy land. Where are all those who feel the sacrifice of martyrs should be mourned and their killers cursed. Do we see Assad being cursed by shia scholars and leaders? Do we see all the major shia public authorities being cursed for endorsing such a brutal massacre? I mean this is directed to those who feel we should start cursing indiscriminately. This is 100,000 innocent muslims. Children seizing from chemical weaponry and getting paralyzed and pallid to death. Women raped and tormented. This is in my opinion a more drastic modern replica of kerbala. You think the prophet would have found this event happening today less of grief than kerbala? Wouldnt he have hated Assad more or equivalent to yazeed. But the reality is muslim dont mourn for martyrs and especially dont create divisions based on a sacrificial event. The whole kerbala thing has been transformed from a learning and inspiring event to a divisive, emotional and opportunity for sahaba bashing even outside yazeed's persona. Yazeed always linked to muawiya. Muwiya to othman the appointer of muawiya. And so on so forth. Do we blade our skins for prophet yahya and other prophets who got killed? If I am not mistaken several prophets were killed brutally in their missions. Othman, Ali and Umar all were martyred. Husseins and family martyrdom is another martyrdom in a great lineage of sacrifices by muslim greats and chosen ones. When the crusaders got hold of jerusalem before salahuddins conquest muslim blood was shed until the horses were waddling in blood. The mongols killed so many muslims and ravaged cities. It is well known the mongols brutality was unmatched including slicing pregnant women up and decapitating cats. I am saying all this because it appears that the concept of sahaba speculation and accusation is justified based on the event of kerbala and a theory has been created preceding it and proceeding it about the 'hypocrite' sahabas rather than genuine civil war and strife. This I must say is one of the shameful plots in the muslim history. To believe in this theory we have to discount all our texts on the glorious generations. And finally before I leave I dont mind shias and other sunnis demonizing sahabas. They can curse, belittle, name call them e.t.c. It doesnt affect me in the least coz the loss is theirs. However what affects me is that the approach is counter productive esp if one has been with a wide spectrum of sunnis and knows their thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Salam)

The other thing is the irony today. Look at syria. Muslim blood seeping all over the street. This is damascus. A holy land. Where are all those who feel the sacrifice of martyrs should be mourned and their killers cursed. Do we see Assad being cursed by shia scholars and leaders? Do we see all the major shia public authorities being cursed for endorsing such a brutal massacre? I mean this is directed to those who feel we should start cursing indiscriminately. This is 100,000 innocent muslims. Children seizing from chemical weaponry and getting paralyzed and pallid to death. Women raped and tormented. This is in my opinion a more drastic modern replica of kerbala. You think the prophet would have found this event happening today less of grief than kerbala? Wouldnt he have hated Assad more or equivalent to yazeed. But the reality is muslim dont mourn for martyrs and especially dont create divisions based on a sacrificial event. The whole kerbala thing has been transformed from a learning and inspiring event to a divisive, emotional and opportunity for sahaba bashing even outside yazeed's persona. Yazeed always linked to muawiya. Muwiya to othman the appointer of muawiya. And so on so forth. Do we blade our skins for prophet yahya and other prophets who got killed? If I am not mistaken several prophets were killed brutally in their missions. Othman, Ali and Umar all were martyred. Husseins and family martyrdom is another martyrdom in a great lineage of sacrifices by muslim greats and chosen ones. When the crusaders got hold of jerusalem before salahuddins conquest muslim blood was shed until the horses were waddling in blood. The mongols killed so many muslims and ravaged cities. It is well known the mongols brutality was unmatched including slicing pregnant women up and decapitating cats. I am saying all this because it appears that the concept of sahaba speculation and accusation is justified based on the event of kerbala and a theory has been created preceding it and proceeding it about the 'hypocrite' sahabas rather than genuine civil war and strife. This I must say is one of the shameful plots in the muslim history. To believe in this theory we have to discount all our texts on the glorious generations. And finally before I leave I dont mind shias and other sunnis demonizing sahabas. They can curse, belittle, name call them e.t.c. It doesnt affect me in the least coz the loss is theirs. However what affects me is that the approach is counter productive esp if one has been with a wide spectrum of sunnis and knows their thinking.

Just like you may consider wahabi's and salafi's off shoots of "true" sunni Islam. The shia consider the same for alawites. In addition, on the same token just like you don't see anyone condemning Assad for killing sunni's (debatable) (btw, who has shed more "sunni" blood; Assad or the takifiris?) I don't see any real attempt at anyone condemning the wahabis/salafi's/takifiris for shia killings/cleansing...Just for the record I don't agree with Assad in any way nor do I support him; I think you should look at both sides of the coin and if you do, Mr. OnesidedChap, hopefully you will come to the conclusion that both sides are very ugly. To conclude, there is a big difference between yazeed and Assad you are overlooking when trying to compare their parts in karabala and syria today, respectively. Yazeed, sat on the throne attacking the fundamentals of Islam looking to destroy it; Assad is trying to keep hold of his political power/control over Syria (nothing to do with Islam no matter how you bake it, shake it, and serve it). Edited by kbsquare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

Its inevitable and its in the human nature, that few man always love to rule at any cost and the best way to rule is by creating division and attacking others. Read the history of mankind and Allah SWT sends Prophets after Prophets onto this man kind for guidance yet as soon as any prophet left their nation, there come power hungry people who will create fitna change the teachings and divide the nation and then rule. Ok having said that, I read history in some different perspective, wherein all four Imams of Sunni were found daggers drawn at each other and even Shafis fought Malikies, there was a fight between the followers of Imam Hanbal and Ibn e tayymiah etc etc etc. Even Ummayads dynasty was taken to task by Abbasids sunni versus sunni or to be precise Yazeedies vs sunnies and now can be termed as salafies vs sunnies. If we take recent history, then aal e saud betrayed Usmani Caliphate and again we can safely assume salafi vs sunni.

Brother, in all these era of sunni rule there were still few lands under the control of shias and they still live in peace with each other and co existed. Like in India and Pakistan and even today they does co exist except modern salafies under the name of deobands aka jamatiayahs aka terrorist who always on look out to spread hate by asking such question. Why its like this now a days, as Saudi is a big time trouble and is funding too much to spread wahabism aka old salafism based on ummayads schools.

Take the monetary funding out, and you will see Shia and sunni co existing with each other just like some 30 years back. Moreover, this net has been extensively used and freedom of speech has taken a colossal leap to put across every dispute into the hands of those people who are unable to handle and even marjas and sheikhs are disrespected by the net rijalians and old scholars books are discussed like trash.

Chill man nothing is going to change except true seekers of knowledge will always find their path

I live in Pakistan and never discuss any controversial issue with my any of sunni brothers less I find some nasibi mocking Imam (AS). Same ways my sunni brothers always respect my feelings and they themselves gives a shutup call to such idiots who are fitna mongers.

Cursing has nothing to do with co existence. In western countries muslims consider Christians and hindus and all non muslims as mushriks but still they are living as neighbours. So move on brother if someone is living peacefully I do not have any problem with him observing anything he feels is right as per his religion.

Jazak Allah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a sunni perspective. I know most people hate Muawiya here but it is coming from a traditional sunni perspective and someone keen on reconciling shias and sunnis....

This is a difficult topic but its good we are all discussing this and evolving our views and learning things and getting opportunity to express about the sunni-shia conflict so currently pervasive in the ummah. As you can see I am focused on Muawiya and the sunni-shia differences. I think there is no doubt in most peoples minds that Kerbala was a tragedy, Imam hussein was a hero and that Yazeed's rule can be criticized by shias and those sunnis who see him as the focus of the problem. To answer your query about Muawiya I might have been wrong about him being completely an unopposed revered sahabi by overwhelming consensus but however what there is overwhelming consensus on especially is that he doesnot deserve negativity ascribed by Shia friends and small groups of sunnis looking at his history. And that is why I said the article wont be accepted in traditional sunni circles because of that one punch-line about Muawiya in your dad's arrticle. Scribe of Quran, companion of prophet, positive hadiths about him in sahih texts, clear context of why he opposed caliph even though he was wrong. As I said if we were living in Caliph Ali's time and we didnt understand his wisdom and thought that he was lax in justice to one of our beloved close relatives we might have ended up making the same decisions and ended up on the wrong camp. Thats why I think there was a lot of emotions involved rather than politics. And thus we are no one to call these people bad. So I would rather think good of him than bad because of all other things he has done. He wasnt involved in kerbala. Nor did he rule badly. Infact his rulership ability have been lauded as one of the successful period. He did alot against the Byzantium empire. Expansion of state into north africa and spain. He greatly beautified damascus and bulity a rivaling court to constantinople. There is mention that he led a good welfare state and that non-muslim citizens were dealt with well as well. He is said to have been a just ruler and his citizens loved him. Ofcourse he bulilt a great powerful muslim army as well. This what one non-muslim said about him after studying his rule of 20 years "certainly there could be no denying that Muawiya - in the scope of his achievements, in the awesome scale of his authority, and in the radiant splendor of his name was patently a favourite of God".

Besides all this I personally don't really get too angry whoever wants to ascribe negativity to Muawiya or even for that matter to even greater Sahabi like Abubakr, Uthman, Zayd and others. What I am particularly concerned after spending alot of time with traditional sunnis, salafis discussing about shias is that the chances of peace and genuine unity fall drastically whenever these groups sniff any negativity towards the traditionally respected sahabas. And thats why if you even read my blog I narrow down the whole shia-sunni rabid hate and intolerance to two issues in current debate. All other opposition to shia I label as propaganda because I know we can work around it to achieve peace. But two issues if the shia tactfully recognize will see that they will become integrated faster and the whole ummah will become stronger. One is the approach to the sahabis and the other is the syrian catastrophi. Sunnis get agitated and irritable with shias easily in these two affairs and especially the sahabi opposition. That has to be approached very tactfully. As I said opposition to Ali was truly the first great fitna because it continues today as many shias have used that civil war to cast a net on a large proportion of great sahabis with unreplicable positive legacies as evil. And that fitna has continued in keeping the ummah split. Its hard to convince sunnis to allow shias to continue reviling sahabi and be united with them. On the other hand minorities usually become more defiant when one of their core faith principles is challenged and in shia case that is the perceived malicious opposition to Ahlul Bayt.

But I continue to tell shias not to revile sahabas and keep on telling sunnis stop the propaganda against shias. I think Zaki's point is great. Islam is greater than personalities. And maybe both shias and sunnis need to widen their range of tolerability on this issue.

I personaly will continue to feel slightly irked when someone mentions Muawiya as an evil person because I dont see enough in history to justify that and nor do most Ulema on the issue and the agitation arises not that someone cursed a sahabi but because it enforces the cyclical divison. Infact as I said I dont know of even a single scholar who will say that Muawiya was a hypocrite. However for the sake of compromise because unity is so much more important perhaps sunnis maybe should learn to tolerate and accept that yazeed (already happens alot) and Muawiya be allowed to be opposed with a critical approach and shias compromise that the unnopposable sahabis of sunni faith (like Abubakr, Uthman, Omar, Zayd, Muadh and many others) be left in history instead of continuing with negative stories about them for the sake of unity. We are not asking much from both parties to stop the hate. To just see how complex this topic is maybe read a typical salafi/traditional sunni approach to the issuehttp://www.islamictreasure.com/2622-imam-ahmad-about-what-happened-between-ali-and-muawiyah/ Its easy to see why most sunni Muslims find this approach very appealing. It is rigid but the masses find it appealing. Thats why shias who are in the minorty have to be more tactful rather than be defiant about sahabas because of these axioms in sunni literature. I think if good people on both side dont agree on history then the minority should compromise and be pragmatic for the greater good of the group. This is a very very long rant. sorry guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote this in a sunni platform discussing about shia-sunni relations..........

This is a difficult topic but its good we are all discussing this and evolving our views and learning things and getting opportunity to express about the sunni-shia conflict so currently pervasive in the ummah. As you can see I am focused on Muawiya and the sunni-shia differences. I think there is no doubt in most peoples minds that Kerbala was a tragedy, Imam hussein was a hero and that Yazeed's rule can be criticized by shias and those sunnis who see him as the focus of the problem. To answer your query about Muawiya I might have been wrong about him being completely an unopposed revered sahabi by overwhelming consensus but however what there is overwhelming consensus on especially is that he doesnot deserve negativity ascribed by Shia friends and small groups of sunnis looking at his history. And that is why I said the article wont be accepted in traditional sunni circles because of that one punch-line about Muawiya in your dad's arrticle. Scribe of Quran, companion of prophet, positive hadiths about him in sahih texts, clear context of why he opposed caliph even though he was wrong. As I said if we were living in Caliph Ali's time and we didnt understand his wisdom and thought that he was lax in justice to one of our beloved close relatives we might have ended up making the same decisions and ended up on the wrong camp. Thats why I think there was a lot of emotions involved rather than politics. And thus we are no one to call these people bad. So I would rather think good of him than bad because of all other things he has done. He wasnt involved in kerbala. Nor did he rule badly. Infact his rulership ability have been lauded as one of the successful period. He did alot against the Byzantium empire. Expansion of state into north africa and spain. He greatly beautified damascus and bulity a rivaling court to constantinople. There is mention that he led a good welfare state and that non-muslim citizens were dealt with well as well. He is said to have been a just ruler and his citizens loved him. Ofcourse he bulilt a great powerful muslim army as well. This what one non-muslim said about him after studying his rule of 20 years "certainly there could be no denying that Muawiya - in the scope of his achievements, in the awesome scale of his authority, and in the radiant splendor of his name was patently a favourite of God".

Besides all this I personally don't really get too angry whoever wants to ascribe negativity to Muawiya or even for that matter to even greater Sahabi like Abubakr, Uthman, Zayd and others. What I am particularly concerned after spending alot of time with traditional sunnis, salafis discussing about shias is that the chances of peace and genuine unity fall drastically whenever these groups sniff any negativity towards the traditionally respected sahabas. And thats why if you even read my blog I narrow down the whole shia-sunni rabid hate and intolerance to two issues in current debate. All other opposition to shia I label as propaganda because I know we can work around it to achieve peace. But two issues if the shia tactfully recognize will see that they will become integrated faster and the whole ummah will become stronger. One is the approach to the sahabis and the other is the syrian catastrophi. Sunnis get agitated and irritable with shias easily in these two affairs and especially the sahabi opposition. That has to be approached very tactfully. As I said opposition to Ali was truly the first great fitna because it continues today as many shias have used that civil war to cast a net on a large proportion of great sahabis with unreplicable positive legacies as evil. And that fitna has continued in keeping the ummah split. Its hard to convince sunnis to allow shias to continue reviling sahabi and be united with them. On the other hand minorities usually become more defiant when one of their core faith principles is challenged and in shia case that is the perceived malicious opposition to Ahlul Bayt.

But I continue to tell shias not to revile sahabas and keep on telling sunnis stop the propaganda against shias. I think Zaki's point is great. Islam is greater than personalities. And maybe both shias and sunnis need to widen their range of tolerability on this issue.

I personaly will continue to feel slightly irked when someone mentions Muawiya as an evil person because I dont see enough in history to justify that and nor do most Ulema on the issue and the agitation arises not that someone cursed a sahabi but because it enforces the cyclical divison. Infact as I said I dont know of even a single scholar who will say that Muawiya was a hypocrite. However for the sake of compromise because unity is so much more important perhaps sunnis maybe should learn to tolerate and accept that yazeed (already happens alot) and Muawiya be allowed to be opposed with a critical approach and shias compromise that the unnopposable sahabis of sunni faith (like Abubakr, Uthman, Omar, Zayd, Muadh and many others) be left in history instead of continuing with negative stories about them for the sake of unity. We are not asking much from both parties to stop the hate.

To just see how complex this topic is maybe read a typical salafi/traditional sunni approach to the issue.http://www.islamictreasure.com/2622-imam-ahmad-about-what-happened-between-ali-and-muawiyah/ Its easy to see why most sunni Muslims find this approach very appealing. It is rigid but the masses find it appealing. Thats why shias who are in the minorty have to be more tactful rather than be defiant about sahabas because of these axioms in sunni literature. I think if good people on both side dont agree on history then the minority should compromise and be pragmatic for the greater good of the group. This is a very very long rant. sorry guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...